Maybe the confounding factor here is that the term "load balance" could be extremely unsuitable for onlyfans' processing logic; e.g. they might preferentially route the risky transactions to one or two processors that won't get too agitated/punitive.
How is any given transaction distinguished as being risky or non-risky?
Just off the top of my head, they'd have chargeback rate per-performer and per-customer. Or they may have some kind of internal scoring system that rates how "porn-y" a given performer is - maybe that correlates to chargeback rate.
Who knows - I'm just spitballing. But there are signals one could look at.
If you've had multiple transactions with the same buyer with no chargebacks, you can probably put that buyer in a low risk pool.
The individual processors are the ones who care about chargebacks, not VISA itself. So by spreading the processing among several of them, the number of chargebacks per processor are lower.
It's load balancing.
Also lower is the number of transactions. The ratio stays the same.
From my experience in the adult industry, the processor cared more about the total than the percentage.
This just isn't true. Yes, you can be pinged by the processor, but mostly because they're worried about the CC networks pinging them.
Source: Have a 30M+ people site that has been pinged by VISA itself for chargeback ratios ...